I have made no secret on this blog of my distaste for the Republican strategy of pushing opposition to abortion and gay marriage as litmus tests for GOP candidates and as “wedge” issues to use in campaigns.

While I acknowledge there are many millions of sincere, devout Christians (and other social conservatives) who see these issues as vital to the moral fiber of the nation and thus worthy of standing them up front and center as the party’s main identity, from a personal standpoint, I strenuously disagree.

Abortion, I can understand. The religious underpinnings that can rationalize life at conception are well known to me, having grown up Catholic. But the Republic or the “sanctity of marriage” being in danger because two people in love want to get married? That’s a stretch. There may be other reasons to keep gay people from marrying but the more I think about it, the more I believe that it’s really no body’s business who loves who and what sex they are. There may be sticky legal issues involved but I’m no lawyer and can’t speak to them. All I can look to is common sense. And common sense tells me that gay people should be able to do anything in this free country that anyone else can do.

Beyond common sense, there is politics. And while I am not calling for dropping these planks from any GOP platform, these issues are no longer “wedge” issues. They are “loser” issues. They are “recipe for electoral disaster” issues. They are driving people away from the Republican party.

Another time I might make the argument that they are not even conservative issues but such a post is not in my pen tonight. Instead, I want to talk about the regularity with which conservative Republicans seem to get themselves into trouble over sex. The latest is Idaho Senator Larry Craig who was arrested in a Minneapolis restroom for “lewd conduct.”

â€œAt 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,â€ the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that â€œI could … see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.â€

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

â€œWith my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, â€˜No!â€™ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didnâ€™t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.â€

The conduct doesn’t seem lewd to me and the whole story reeks of something very fishy. But the fact is, the Senator pled guilty and probably thought that it would stay out of the papers if he didn’t make a fuss.

The point really isn’t whether he’s guilty or innocent. The point is that this sort of thing becomes a huge issue because of the way the party talks about gays and the way many GOP stalwarts like Reverend Robertson and James Dobson talk about sex. The perception that Republicans are a bunch of bigoted blue noses stuck in the 19th century with Victorian sensibilities about the bedroom turns off a lot of voters – especially the young.

A brief look at this eye popping poll that shows the vital 18-29 year old group turning up their noses at Republicans is very significant. I was in that age group when I became a Republican and many of my fellow Reaganites were also young, eager conservatives who drank in the enormous intellectual ferment that bubbled up from dozens of places in Reagan’s Washington. We were on the cutting edge and we knew it.

Nowadays, I don’t blame young people for turning off the GOP. The corruption, the hypocrisy, the sanctimony, and the tired old men pushing tired old ideas to an ever shrinking number of wealthier, whiter, men has the GOP in deep, deep, trouble. If I were that age again, I probably wouldn’t support Republicans either.

Perhaps the predicted disaster in 2008 will wake a few people up. Not likely based on what happened in 2006. As the left did for 30 years, the push will be for more ideological “purity,” more fealty to what passes for conservative issues today.

Just at the moment that our country needs the right’s commitment to fight a war against an implacable, unyielding foe, our own stupidity is going to allow the milquetoast left to ascend to power. For that, our children and grand children may curse us for our folly.

/off

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey also sees disaster for the GOP in 2008 – at least in the Senate.

The Republicans already have a 21-12 disadvantage in next year’s Senate contests. His was one of the seats the GOP hoped to hold, and his party had been pushing to keep him from retiring. I suspect they’re looking for Plan B at the moment.

(From the Roll Call article) â€œAt one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, â€˜What do you think about that?â€™ the report states.â€

(Allah): I think he can probably start throwing away those cards now.

By: Rick Moran at 8:42 pm

79 Responses to “JESUS, LORD! ARE THEY ALL HYPOCRITICAL BASTARDS?”

1

busboy33 Said:
9:51 pm

If Republicans want to keep the party viable, they need to engage in exactly this sort of internal examination. Unfortunately, I have to go to blogs to hear honest internal criticism. Kudos to Mr. Moran.

Incidentally, I’m a Leftie opposed to gay marriage. I think we are both going to get kicked out of our respective clubs.

2

john mcglasson jr. Said:
9:51 pm

Nice article, I’ve been evolving away from the foundations of the repub party like gay marriage and even abortion, I just don’t really care what someone else does as long as they’re not doing it to me or mine. The Founding Fathers, probably the most brilliant collective in history, had the humility to admit that they didn’t have the answers for everything and everyone, something modern political types lack, humility. It’s just not ours to decide for others, even in the case of abortion, we just can’t stop it if it’s within someone to do it. It can’t be legislated away.

Regardless of this Senator Craig business, I don’t think it is hypocritical for a homosexual to oppose same sex marriage. It may be wrong (or not), but not hypocritical. As to Senator Craig, I don’t know enough about his past statements regarding the issue to say whether he’s a hypocrite. Perhaps he is. I know he publicly stated he was not a homosexual, but if he wants to stay “in the closest” frankly that’s his business.

I tend to agree that Christian moralists (including Rev. Dobson, who to a does a good amount of good I think as well) are hurting Republicans with younger voters. It’s a delicate balance. Younger voters are less likely to vote, and as they get older have usually move right on social issues as they start families (at least in the past). The GOP risks losing votes from it’s traditional core post-1976 voters moving moderating on social issues. Then again, social cons really don’t have anywhere else to go right now except no chance third parties.

[...] As a prominent right-wing blogger commented today: The point really isnâ€™t whether heâ€™s guilty or innocent. The point is that this sort of thing becomes a huge issue because of the way the party talks about gays and the way many GOP stalwarts like Reverends Robertson and Dobson talk about sex. The perception that Republicans are a bunch of bigoted blue noses stuck in the 19th century with Victorian sensibilities about the bedroom turns off a lot of voters â€“ especially the young. [...]

You’re still wrong on the Beauchamp issue and Ace, but I agree with this, in particular the gay issue and young voters(which I think I fit into).

Restricting abortion is actually not a bad position for us, from what I can tell, younger people are more pro-life than the older age groups, so I think your assessment on that is wrong.

However, the fever pitch on gay issues is too much. And it absoutely does hurt us in my age group, and with many others.

The sad part is, I actually think we could do much better in my age group if we preached liberty based conservatism,in particular combatting the Nanny State, I think a lot of people see things they enjoy being banned or restricted, or people wanting to ban or restrict things they enjoy. Even protecting small things like video games, tobacco, alcohol, vehicles, food. That unfolds into bigger, more important liberties like speech rights, privacy(combatting creepy Big Brother overreach) and the right to bear arms, then move onto free market principles combined with preaching community activism and volunteering (which my age group is much more willing to volunteer than previous ones) over unethical(and often misused or abused) gov’t entitlements…use copius examples of gov’t failure and juxtapose to private and charitable success.

Beyond that, the issue of the coming collapse of Social Security and Medicare, and the tab they’ll be left with. Given the rampant and spectacular failures in gov’t we’ve witnessed, I think people are likely to be skeptical of big gov’ts ability to solve problems.

I know I’m missing things, but I think that the GOP message is weak, and rings hollow for future generations, and frankly, current ones, mostly because the GOP elite are a bunch of corrupt, tin-eared f*cktards.

I think people would be much more open to conservatism if we went at the angle I propose over the current crop of Kleptocons and sloppy pandering to religious.

I would have thought that membership in the “singing senators” would be enough to indicate the presence of something seriously wrong with the man, but apparently not.

8

mkultra Said:
10:58 pm

The cop arrested him, based on his belief that he had probable cause to arrest him. And Craig pled guilty to a crime. If he didn’t do anything wrong, he should have gone to trial.

Moran says:

“The conduct doesnâ€™t seem lewd to me and the whole story reeks of something very fishy. But the fact is, the Senator pled guilty and probably thought that it would stay out of the papers if he didnâ€™t make a fuss.”

It reeks of something fishy? Yes, it reeks of Craig committing a crime. What is your problem, Moran? I wonder what your comment would have been if Craig had been a Democrat.

And assuming the Senator thought it would stay out of the papers is even more asnine. Why in the world would he think that? Are you completely clueless about the justice system? He freaking told the cops he was a Senator. It is quite decidely not a “fact” that he problably thought his arrest would not make the news, contrary to your completely mindless ramblings. Cops talk to DA’s. DA’s talk to clerks and judges. All of them talk to support personnel. They in turn talk to their families. Who in turn talk to their friends. Why in the hell would ever consider for one single moment that he thought it would stay out of the news? Are you insane?

He pled guilty in spite of the fact that it would make the news, not because of it. Got it, Rick?

Craig is a member of the GOP, a party that is premised on homophobia. He is freaking hypocrite who got caught. Got it, Rick?

9

Steve-o Said:
11:02 pm

This issue has me confused. (I’m straight.) A gay guy goes to a bar and hits on a guy he doesn’t know for sex, that’s OK. Same thing in a bathroom, that’s lewd conduct. Giving a non-lewd “signal” (foot-tapping) is lewd behavior? What if he had just said, “Are you gay and interested in having sex with me?” Is that against the law? Only in a bathroom, or anywhere?

Gays marching around in public in weird revealing outfits and making out is OK, foot-tapping not OK.

Is homosexual behavior OK or not? It seems that gays do not have a level field with straights when it comes to searching for willing partners.

10

mkultra Said:
11:06 pm

Moran says:

“The perception that Republicans are a bunch of bigoted blue noses stuck in the 19th century with Victorian sensibilities about the bedroom turns off a lot of voters â€“ especially the young.”

No, Rick, it is not the perception. It is the reality. Republicans hate gay people because they are gay. Why is that so freaking difficult for you to understand?

How many GOP candidates for President against don’t aks don’t tell? Not one Rick. That’s reality, Rick. Not a percpetion, Rick. And the don’t ask don’t tell law is pure homophobia, Rick. Nothing more, Rick. Say it with me, Rick: Republicans hate gays. Say it again, Rick. They hate them. They hate, hate. hate, them.

That’s reality, Rick. Got it?

And that’s why the GOP is doomed. They have been reduced to the party of fear and hate. And young people don’t do either. The GOP is holding this country back. Let’s get beyond the hate, Rick. Let’s get beyond the fear, Rick.

“Craig is a member of the GOP, a party that is premised on homophobia.”

Awkward language, but you imply that the party was founded on homophobia. Haven’t ever seen that in the platform. Which Republicans have said they fear homosexuals? Opposition to gay marriage can’t imply homophobia, there are quite a few gays in opposition to gay marriage (Ever read the GayPatriot blog? There are a lot of Republican homosexual congressmen, if the party is homophobic, wouldn’t the Republican leadership have some way of keeping them out of the party?

I know, the leadership is setting them up one-by-one to get rid of them! Of course! Mark Foley, and now Craig. Look out California guy, you’re next!

The Republican party has a choice.They can follow the liberals into never never land, embracing a homosexual life style, gay marriage, abortion, or any other social aberration to win the 18-29 vote( which they will not). They can stick with their true convictions, appose all the above and retain their moral compass.
Many Christian Conservatives really do believe the biblical statement, “that righteousness exalteth a nation , but sin is a reproach to any people.”
They also believe that God is not some later day good old boy Who looks the other way when it comes to sin and just lets the good times roll.
If you don’t believe, that certainly is your right,and it doesn’t make you an ogre. On the other hand if one does believe, they equally are not necessarily religious nut cases.

13

BiteMyJihad Said:
11:45 pm

MKultra,
Nice nickname, but you’re nutso on the gay thang.

Republicans hate gay people? WTF kind of generalized claim is that?

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was created by Clinton. Last I checked he was a Dem. And how exactly is it homophobic anyway? Its SEX-o-Phobic maybe, but homo? No way.

And the freakin Dems couldnt give a straight (no pun intended) answer at the Logo debates. Too hot a potato for ALL of them. Don’t get it twisted. The only one who was actually willing to state a solid position was Dennis K and he’s about as big a non-candidate as they come.

[...] –Right Wing Nuthouse (a blog that is misnamed): The conduct doesnâ€™t seem lewd to me and the whole story reeks of something very fishy. But the fact is, the Senator pled guilty and probably thought that it would stay out of the papers if he didnâ€™t make a fuss. [...]

15

mkultra Said:
11:57 pm

“Donâ€™t Ask Donâ€™t Tell was created by Clinton. Last I checked he was a Dem. And how exactly is it homophobic anyway? Its SEX-o-Phobic maybe, but homo? No way.”

So a Democrat attempts to deal with right wing homophobia, to mollify it, to cage the beast, and he is the bigot?

WTF is wrong with you? Seriously. Where is your f**king moral compass?

You are sick. One twisted sick MF. Sick. Get some help.

Look at the last GOP debate and the last Dem debate. All Dems would get rid of the law. All GOP’ers would keep it.

You are sick. Sick, sick, sick. Just like Moran. What is wrong with you?

16

mkultra Said:
12:07 am

Being against gays in the milirary is wrong. Like being against black people in the military. There is no difference. And yet all GOP candidates for Pres are against gays in the military. None of the Dem candidates are.

Right wing presidential candidates are bigots and so are the people who vote for them. It’s that simple.

17

busboy33 Said:
12:27 am

@Edward Cropper:
“The Republican party has a choice.They can follow the liberals into never never land, embracing a homosexual life style, gay marriage, abortion, or any other social aberration to win the 18-29 vote( which they will not). ”

and there’s the essential weakness of the Right-Wing branch of the Republican party: absolutism. There’s a big difference between “embracing a homosexual lifestyle” and simply not leading a pogrom against them. But to the “base,” everything is complete black-and-white. When trying to express the goals and ideals of a legitimate political movement, devolving to “so what do you want? Gay sex mandated in the streets?!” reeeeeeely chases most of the people away.

Oh and subtly throwing in people who don’t back the extreme 100% are going to Hell isn’t a particularly good recruiting tool either.

18

Becky Said:
12:47 am

I am still amazed that the no one is discussing what I feel is becoming a frightening trend – on both the left and the right.

Look, the left can choose to get hyperexcited about how all Republicans are secretly gay. So let them have their fun. Blah, blah, who cares.

But Larry Craig withstood a Cat 5 Hurricane and voted against his constituents on the immigration issue. I live in Idaho. For those who don’t know the mood here – it was an absolute up-yours to the voters of this state. But it was more than that, it was a downright odd event considering how deeply it would weaken his support in the next election.

So the question is – was he blackmailed? It doesn’t matter how you feel about any particular issue that someone can be blackmailed over. It is not about gay rights. It is about ANY issue that someone could threaten to expose you and exert control over you.

It seems any mention of this is off limits? Isn’t it time that we force our Senators and Congressmen to undergo at least the same background investigations that we require government clerks to undergo?

Again – this is not about gay issues. It is about issues that, if exposed, will allow an individual to be controlled by someone who threatens to expose that information.

19

mkultra Said:
1:53 am

“Look, the left can choose to get hyperexcited about how all Republicans are secretly gay. So let them have their fun. Blah, blah, who cares.”

Becky, you miss the point. GOP politicians are – in the main – homphobic. That means they discriminate against men and women based on who they are.

You don’t get it, Becky, Gay people are like black people 50 years ago – enduring your ignorance. And hatred.

F**K you Becky. Life is too short too actively engage people like you.

20

Becky Said:
2:06 am

next time, before you tell someone to fu** off – perhaps you should read their entire post. It was pretty hard NOT to grasp that my post was about blackmail and not about gay issues.

I’m sorry that you live your entire life looking for homophobic actions and comments in everything that goes on around you. That’s your problem, not mine.

[...] Posted by crushliberalism on August 28th, 2007 Those of you who know me or who have been around here long enough know that I don’t like hypocrisy, regardless of from which side it originates.Â Therefore, I have no qualms about whacking a Republican when he/she has it coming to him/her.Â Right Wing Nut House reflects my sentiments here: I have made no secret on this blog of my distaste for the Republican strategy of pushing opposition to abortion and gay marriage as litmus tests for GOP candidates and as â€œwedgeâ€ issues to use in campaigns. While I acknowledge there are many millions of sincere, devout Christians (and other social conservatives) who see these issues as vital to the moral fiber of the nation and thus worthy of standing them up front and center as the partyâ€™s main identity, from a personal standpoint, I strenuously disagree. (This isn’t the part where I agree, but he’s leading up to it. – Ed.) … Another time I might make the argument that they are not even conservative issues but such a post is not in my pen tonight. Instead, I want to talk about the regularity with which conservative Republicans seem to get themselves into trouble over sex. The latest is Idaho Senator Larry Craig who was arrested in a Minneapolis restroom for â€œlewd conduct.â€ â€œAt 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,â€ the report states. Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that â€œI could â€¦ see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.â€ Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it. â€œWith my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, â€˜No!â€™ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. … Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didnâ€™t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.â€ [...]

26

gregdn Said:
8:46 am

The Republican preoccupation with sex was one of the things that drove me from the Party (I’m a Libertarian). From impeaching Clinton for lying about a BJ to the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ they’ve shown themselves to be addled hypocrites pandering to the Religous Right.
If the Party wants to get back on track they could start by telling the Social Conservatives to STFU and kick the issue of homosexual marriage back to the states (where it properly belongs).
Fight it at the state level if you wish, but don’t destroy the national GOP by fighting to impose your morality on the rest of us.

27

Becky Said:
9:24 am

Sigh. I see I am alone in my concerns. After reading many blogs this morning, everyone seems to want to use this event as a bat for their own issues and no one seems to want to take a hard look at something, which if true, is a far more serious issue.

On June 11th – Senator Craig was caught in a bathroom soliciting someone for gay sex. Put aside, for a moment all of your feelings about gay issues, infidelity the Republican and/or Democratic party and simply accept that he was arrested in a politically damaging position. Whatever he did, it was bad enough for him, a Senator with a far better than average knowledge of the law, to find it in his interests to plead guilty to a charge. Any charge.

On June 28th – Senator Craig voted against his constituents on the immigration issue. Perhaps you have to live in Idaho, as I do, to understand the politically damaging magnitude of his action in this regard. To grasp: Imagine Senator Boxer voting for a proposition to deny illegal immigrants all services in the State of California.

Now, I don’t know, but I find it hard to believe that this could have been a well kept secret. I would assume, since he was arrested, that it was public record. So though, we the public are just discovering this now, is it possible that no one in Washington knew about this arrest? I find that IMpossible.

Am the only one who would like to know who knew and when? Because if it was known, and the incident was kept quiet and used to influence his vote on the immigration issue, is this not every bit as damaging as a Senator being paid to vote?

If our reps personal failings are being used to by other Senators, Congressmen, lobbyists, etc. to get them to vote agaist the CRYSTAL CLEAR wishes of their voters – should that not be something that we focus on.

Apparently not. Apparently we are only concerned with using this to wack everyone about the head with personal opinions about sexual morality, whether or not the media is biased in favor of Democrats or how best this can be used or not used against one party or another. NOW PLEASE NOTE: I’m not saying that there is anything WRONG with using the Craig issue to discuss these or other issues. I’m just saying I find it disheartening that no one, in the articles or blogs that I read today seems the slightest bit concerned that, considering the timing of these events – that it seems highly likely that members of the Republican Party, Democratic party or both used this issue to blackmail Senator Craig.

How would that be any different than them bribing their compatriots for a vote?

But the Republic or the â€œsanctity of marriageâ€ being in danger because two people in love want to get married? Thatâ€™s a stretch.

I believe that the opposite is actually true. Gay marriage, imo, could strengthen the institution of marriage, not weaken it. By all accounts, the gay people who want to get married are life-long companions.

As for the dire predictions about the GOP, never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot, and never underestimate the resiliency of a two-party system where many people will vote for tweedle-dum because he/she is the less bad than tweedle-dee.

29

r4d20 Said:
10:53 am

â€œso what do you want? Gay sex mandated in the streets?!â€

Ok, I’ll say it!

I want mandatory sex-filled gay marriage for everyone!

30

busboy33 Said:
11:29 am

@Becky:
The fact that a senator voted against the wishes of their constituency is not an earth-shattering event—unfortunately, they do it all the time. Is it POSSIBLE that there was a blackmail plot? Sure, its possible. If the only envidence of a plot is that a senator (or representative) acted against what their constituency wanted, then I don’t think thats enough to start looking for boogeymen (or boogeywomen).
Thats kind of the point of elected representatives for our form of government—if it was simply a case of “majority rules,” then they would all be irrevelant. Well, I think they are mostly irrevelant, but the system was set up specifically to avoid majority rule.

@r4d20:
On the down side, not being gay means I wouldn’t like it. On the plus side, I’d be having alot more sex.
“But honey . . . its the law! Now shut up and put out!”

you miss the point. I have not assigned anyone to Hell. That is the sole perogative of God. Nor do I advocate a pogram against anyone.
I have gay friends who I care greatly about, but they know I do not agree with
their life style. They do not agree with much of my straight lifestyle, but we still have genuine concern for each other as fellow human beings.WE ALL MAKE CHOICES IN LIFE and the eternal outcome will be determined by, shall we say outside sources. Those of the gay community can only hide behind a martyr complex for so long. If they want to be a real part of the community they have to stop demonizing everone who wil not fall in line with their restricted guide as to how non gays can think about homosexuals.

Idaho’s senior Senator, Larry Craig, has been accused of homosexuality as far back as 1982, then again last year. He has denied the charges each time. Small wonder—Idaho is not San Francisco. This time though, there is no wiggle room—-Craig…...

Yep – we all need a video taped confession before we even touch the fact that Craig made an highly unusal voting choice just days after he was arrested. Nothing to see here, move along.

34

bitemyjihad Said:
1:53 pm

Why’d you ban MKUltra? His sort of lunatic fringe hilarity is always fun!

The idea that the gay rights psuedo issue is in line with that of the civil rights struggle is just so grossly off the mark. Its disgusting that any American, black, white, gay, straight or otherwise would equate the two. Gay people have all of the rights of non-gay people outside of the stupid word “marriage”. Not only can they vote, drink from the same fountains, not get hosed or beaten by the cops, earn a great living, adopt children, date any race they choose etc… The American infrastructure in many cities are bending over backwards to accomodate them! Gender neutral bathrooms, gay studies in elementary school, gay pride parades endorsed by all walks of political leaders…

When you have the Republicans handing out pork faster than Tip O’Neil would have in his dreams, the party isn’t going anywhere.

When you have the Republicans passing THE LARGEST public hand-out (excuse me, entitlement program) of all time, the part doesn’t hold with fiscal conservatives.

You had an attorney general putting clothes on naked statues to protect his modesty, you look worse than the Victorians, you look more like Jihadists.

Add to that the fury over things that don’t impact you. “Live and Let Live” is not something that the current crop of Republicans can deal with. It used to be the Democrats who wanted to control every aspect of life. Now it is both parties.

There are thousands of gay couples married in Canada, the UK, various European countries, Israel, etc. How exactly do they impact you? How do they touch on the sanctity of straight marriage?

You talk about the “religious justification” for opposing abortion. Do whay your religion tells you to do. Don’t tell me I live by the dictates of YOUR religion or you start to sound Bin Laden.

Gays routinely have trouble with police, though not as official policy anymore.

There are several hundred advantages to marriage, most around taxes, inheritance, survivor benefits, etc. And while gay people can create things like contracts, power of attorney documents, etc. they have been turned over by the courts in favor of parents (the “real family”) on any number of occasions.

Gays can be fired – in some states – just because they are gay.

Can’t serve in the military and have a relationship at the same time.

It used to be the case that gays were routinely denied secret clearances or better even if they weren’t in the closet. Have no idea if this has changed…. doubt that it has changed.

37

Becky Said:
2:21 pm

There are no states where gays can be fired for being gay.

Gays can serve in the military and have a relationship at the same time. They simply can not discuss publically what they do in private or openly approach other service members for sex (I’m guessing toe tapping was ok – maybe not now).

You can be gay and get a clearance. You simply can not lie about it in the investigation or be closeted to the point where you could be blackmailed for it,

which brings me to my original point…

38

HyperIon Said:
3:36 pm

the calculus seems to be: gay-bashing turns off young voters so maybe we should consider abandoning gay-bashing…now that “we” are beginning to worry about losing elections.

how about: it’s WRONG to hate or discriminate or bash people because of a choice they make that makes some people uncomfortable.

First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…

40

busboy33 Said:
10:13 pm

@Becky:
Sorry for the snark, but think about the case you’re making:
1) Craig gets arrested
2) Craig votes against the wishes of a majority of his constituents
3) Craig was blackmailed

That only holds up if (2) is an unusual occurance, something that should raise a red flag. Since elected representatives vote against the wishes of a majority all the time, how is it a suspicious occurance? If its not, then (3) doesn’t follow at all, absent any additional evidence at(2).
I’m not saying he wasn’t blackmailed—I haven’t got the slightest idea whether he was or not, and I don’t doubt such a thing is possible. But to take the idea beyond wild speculation needs something, anything more, at least for me.
I am confused by how the criminal case played out. The police report seemed pretty beatable—I’ve won far worse cases. No offer for sex, just toe tapping and reaching under the stall wall. I’m not sure why he pled, and I’m even more confused by him now saying he didn’t mean it when he said “Guilty.” He’s claiming he should have spoken to a lawyer—is he saying he didn’t? He thought he’d just go in and wing that whole “trying to pay an undercover cop for sex” thing? And if he was winging it, why the heck did he cop to it? I assume he was fully aware of what would happen when he pled—he seems a reasonably intelligent guy. Strange case to be sure, but it implies blackmail is going to require some additional.

41

busboy33 Said:
10:42 pm

@edward cooper:
Perhaps I did miss your point, and my snark tank was on full the other night (rotten day at work) so I got mouthy rather than discuss, and for that I apologize.
Let me re-approach the issue. The Republican party is not a religious movement, but a political one. While you are certainly free to insist that the politics you follow are in line with your religious beliefs, insisting that the political party strictly follow them is a recipie for disaster for Republicans, which seemed to be the concern of the original post (the danger of turning off non-Republicans from the party through apparently hypocritical actions).
Your original post seemed to allow only two possibilities: the Party of the moral compass, or “embracing a homosexual life style, gay marriage, abortion, or any other social aberration to win the 18-29 vote”. As you’ve said, you have gay friends. I assume from the tenor of your posts that you yourself have not embraced the social abberation of a homosexual lifestyle, and yet you can still interact with those friends, work with them, even love and cherish them. Not decrying “social abberations” isn’t the same as embracing them.
As you said, God will judge, not man. Its the tying of Earthly issues (“what is Caesars”) to the spiritual (“what is Gods”) that hamstrings Republicans, by excluding Conservatives of other denominations, if you will. The Bible doesn’t hold opinions on Natinal Defense, on low taxes, on small government, yet these are all issues traditionally associated with Republicans. Focusing on those issues could theoretically garner new recruits to the party.
As the Bible notes, we are all born to sin. By holding themselves out as the paragons of virtue, Republicans only set themselves up to fall farther when those inherent sins are eventually uncovered. Take the example of Prez. Clinton. Most people I know who were disgusted with the Lewinsky affair were offended he lied, but not so much that he was cheating on his wife. After all, this was Slick Willie we’re talking about. Now, if he spent his speeches talking about how he was living a Righteous Life, I personally think the fallout would have been far worse.
Nothing prohibits Republicans (or Democrats) from following their faith and conscience in their lives. Making it the prime reason for the existence of the Republican Party, however, by definition tells everybody who does not hold the same exact belief system “go away.”
Far too long winded a post. Again, my apologies for the snotty attitude in my first reply.

42

busboy33 Said:
10:44 pm

@ Mr. Cooper:
Actually, you said it better than I could:
“If they want to be a real part of the community they have to stop demonizing everone who wil not fall in line with their restricted guide as to how non gays can think about homosexuals.”
Apply this to the Republican Party and you have my point in a nutshell.

43

mannning Said:
10:47 pm

Abortion: When you abort a fetus, you erase all of the structural information the fetus cells contains that would have completed a human being. That is surely murder.

There should be both a moral and a legal prohibition of that act, as well as social disgrace for the one who commits it. The GOP will surely lose voters if they fail on the abortion issue.

Gay Marriage: As I remember the situation, well over 60% of the total population of the US was in favor of banning gay marriage, as well as abortion, back in 2004. In fact, some 11 states passed negative provisions at that time regarding these issues, as I recall. Is someone claiming that these issues have now under 50% of the population’s support? Seems a stretch to me.

The GOP will likely stick to its guns here, don’t you think?

44

mannning Said:
11:30 pm

People, I seem to gather, like to watch porn, fornicate without penalty, play with the same sex, cheat on their income tax (if they pay anything at all), get money free from the government, or get free services such as medical care, schooling, college, home bailout loans, a job for life, a government retirement pension vested after 10 years, superb roads, rail and bus transport, zero smog, pure water, and jolly companions—also for life. But only if they don’t have to pay for it or work hard for it, or defend their nation for it.

They want someone to tell them that there is no global warming to worry about; it will be fixed by the government.

This is the script for a Democratic election campaign, and far too many voters will be taken in by it, sad to say. They will not read the fine print that says we need to raise taxes to do all of these wonderful things for you. That is because Dems will localize the raises to the well-to-do, the filthy rich, the robber barons of Wall Street, and those CEO’s that make mega millions, all of whom collectively now pay over 70% of all taxes.

When that starts a negative economy spiral, and layoffs, who will they blame? The Republicans, of course!

45

tHePeOPle Said:
2:06 am

Dear mannning,

Here’s the deal with actual people on the streets, regardless of party.

1. Very few people really care about abortion. They’d rather have the huge pothole on their street fixed, than work up the energy to debate abortion.

2. Very few people really care about gay marriage. They’d rather have the huge pothole on their street fixed, than work up the energy to debate gay marriage.

This is the simple and absolute truth of the matter in the world that my friends and neighbors live in:

The following are the posts submitted for consideration of the Watcher’s Council this week. In They Don’t Understand the Incentives (Updated), The Glittering Eye argues that the Maliki government doesn’t serve the interests of regular Iraqi citizens…

47

busboy33 Said:
3:42 am

@manning:
“Abortion: When you abort a fetus, you erase all of the structural information the fetus cells contains that would have completed a human being. That is surely murder.”

That is surely not murder. Murder requires the premedidated, intentional killing of a human being, not a “would have completed a human being.”

I’m not passing judgement on whether a fetus is or is not a human being (the basis of the abortion debate), but your definition covers non-human beings that might eventually become a human being. Can’t murder until it is actually classed as a human being.

48

Drewsmom Said:
5:49 am

Abortion is morally wrong in my opinion, I’d never get one, could not do it, but if others do it they will have to answer for it when the time comes, its not place to prevent them from taking a life but I can speak out about it EVERYDAY and will.
larry craig is gross and a liar and thanks to him and others its given our party the hipocrite lable.
If there are more conservative gay guys and ladies, come on out, it seems to help the dems to be openly gay and barney can run a prostitute ring outta his apartment and still go on an win, win, win and be respected. I just hate the double standard the msm shows and reports but HATE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY can make you say and print anything.
I do see that nobody much in the msm is talking about hillary’s $200K contribution from that what’s his name?
Talk about covering for the dems. !!

49

Becky Said:
8:01 am

I do see that nobody much in the msm is talking about hillaryâ€™s $200K contribution from that whatâ€™s his name?

boy – you got that right!

50

Becky Said:
8:11 am

WASHINGTON â€” U.S. Sen. Larry Craig carried the lonely burden of his arrest and guilty plea privately, without telling his staff or consulting a lawyer â€” or ever showing up in court.
As Craig apologized Tuesday afternoon for “the cloud placed over Idaho,” he also acknowledged that he had told no one about his June 11 arrest, when an undercover police officer said Craig made sexual advances toward him in a men’s room at the Minneapolis airport.

Court and arrest records released Tuesday show that Craig negotiated his plea over the telephone, then signed and returned it to the courts in the mail, much like a traffic ticket.

In his plea, signed and dated Aug. 1, but not recorded until Aug. 8, Craig agreed that by handling the matter through the mail, he was giving up a trial and his right to be present at the time of sentencing

Judge Gary Larson, who handled Craig’s case in Hennepin County, would not comment on the senator’s plea. A spokesman for the judge told McClatchy Newspapers that since Craig remains on probation, Larson considers the case open and doesn’t consider it ethical to discuss what happened until the case is fully resolved

The airport restroom was so well known it was featured on an adult Web site that offers information about where men can link up for romantic encounters in both public and private locations.

After his arrest, Craig revisited the Minneapolis airport June 22 to complain about how he had been treated by police. His spokesman said he was on his way to Idaho from Washington, D.C., a trip he takes through the Minneapolis airport most Fridays when Congress is in session.

He stopped at the police operations center and told the officer on duty, Adam Snedker, that it had been more than a week since his arrest and that no one had contacted him. According to the police, the senator told the officer that “he was involved in an incident where he was â€˜drug down to this office’ where he was handcuffed, fingerprinted and interviewed.”

He wanted information about whom to contact so his lawyer could speak with someone, according to the report.

The on-duty officer patched him through to the arresting officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who told Craig the name and phone number of the prosecutor assigned to the case.

In the original arrest report, Karsnia said Craig offered him a business card showing that he was a U.S. senator, and said, “What do you think about that?” Yet the probable-cause complaint offered to the court makes no mention of Craig being an elected official.

Wow, this post really shows how much you really don’t understand about the impact of gay marriage on the structure of the family and how that affects the stability of the culture as a whole, especially the horrible impacts on children. I wrote a post about this on my blog (http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/ignorance_on_family_stability). There are some links in there to some good articles, especially the ones on the detrimental effects gay marriage has had in Scandinavia.

56

retire05 Said:
2:07 pm

Wow! Every blog I have been on in the last few days wants to quote the police report but fails to see the discrepancy in the report. From my point of view, this was a bad bust. I will leave it up to you to determine if you can find the holes in the officer’s statement.

I have read how the GOP needs to clean house. How Republicans cannot be gay and yet oppose gay marriage. Why not? Are you under the impression that all gays are lockstep with the verbal crowd we see marching down the streets of San Francisco? Craig says he is not gay. So what if he is? Does that mean that he is some sort of diviant that we need to purge the GOP from? And if he is, since when has the left started bashing gays? Has this happened since they all pandered in front of the cameras for a gay TV debate? Or is Craig one of the diviants that the Democrat candidates have been pandering to for so long saying they need the right to be diviant? Oh, but we hold GOP members to a higher standard. Really? Is that to say that the Democrats are so depraved that we cannot hold them to “high standards”? It is OK for John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy to tout their Catholicism while the support shoving a rod into the head of an unborn child to kill it because that child is an “inconvenience” for the mother?

Rick blames the attitude toward the GOP and sex on the Reverends Jameson and Dobson. Why? Do they speak for Americans any more than Louis Farrakhan speaks for black Americans? They are not politicians, they don’t make laws and they don’t speak for anyone but themselves and to use them as an excuse for the GOP taking a pounding over what is standard operating procedure for Democrats is moronic. Are we Republicans weak minded sheeple who cannot make decisions regarding our own beliefs for ourselves? It would seem so.

Now, #1, Craig plead out to the charge of “Invasion of privacy” NOT lewd conduct. Did he think that he could just make it go away? Probably. Was that a bad decision. Most certainly. Does that make him guilty of a crime of lewd conduct, solicitation, pandering? No. Was Craig accutely aware of how the GOP eats it’s own in trying to keep Democrats for slamming them? Yes, the Mark Foley incident was probably quite fresh in his mind. Does it make the GOP hypocritical? No. We still have the same standards, even if someone has slipped off the pedestal. Do we all agree? No, as the Log Cabin Republicans example.

Are the actions of Craig, Foley, or any other fallen Republican the reason for the lack of support in the 18-29 year old age group? Only if you do not take into consideration that that very age group has just recently been “indoctrinated” by left leaning teachers and professors. What was it Churchill said? “Anyone under 30 who is not liberal is heartless, etc?” But we are in the blame game here so I acquiesce to the fact that we are our own worst enemy.

Instead of eating our own, instead of letting this play out, we must act. To do nothing would show weakness, so dig out the bar-b-que sauce and put Craig on the pit. He’s burnt.

You seem to expect perfection. If my history is correct, the last time we had a man who was perfect, the Romans nailed him to a cross. The moral hypocrits are the ones who are demanding Craig’s head on a silver platter while not having reached perfection themselves.

I don’t care if David Vitter visits two hookers a day or Craig is a gay man who was stupid. I care that they do their jobs which is to make my nation secure from terrorists, to allow me to keep more of my paycheck and not to have my socks taxes off for a Democratic socialist/collectiveness program.

And all you holier than thou moralists should not care either.

57

tHePeOPle Said:
2:13 pm

Nice blog spam Wonder95.

I read your blog post. It was horrible and incoherent. You might as well just put a banner up on your site that says “I hate gay people.” If you really cared about family stability, my guess is that you’d be helping out down at the battered womens shelter, or the local DCFS. But instead, you blather on and on about how gay people will destabilize families.

You say that homosexuals are just in it for themselves. They don’t care about families, because it’s all about what makes the individual happy. What a stupid distraction from your true feelings, and a point for noting the obvious. Ah, how horrible of them to want rights to designate inheritance. How horrible of them to want the same health and tax benefits. No, all they’re interested in is destroying families, right?

Get a clue. Very few people care about gay marriage. Mostly it’s just bigots with badly written blogs.

From Memeorandum: after reports on Senator Larry Craig’s arrest for disorderly conduct toward a man in an airport bathroom, today’s New York Times quotes Republican party strategist Scott Reed as follows: â€œThe real question for Republicans in Washi…

59

john peters Said:
2:52 pm

Without the wackos and the bigots the republicans could never win an election get it?

60

mannning Said:
3:34 pm

Re #47 above: Please read my statement carefully. I wrote…”would have completed a human being”; that is, a human being that is in the process of growing. From the moment of conception a new human being is present. Thus premeditated or assisted abortion is murder.

Re #45 above: Remind me to stay away from your streets. Not only do they have pot holes, they are apparently full of immoral or amoral souls that care little for others. The stats belie your folksy thoughts.

61

mannning Said:
4:15 pm

The problem is, there is nowhere else to vote but for the Republican party. Allowing the Democrats into full power is simply beyond anguish and nearing chaos. The party knows this well and counts on it to maintain their plush power positions. A third party is wishful thinking; it only ensures a Democratic win.

If the party is the President, then the one hope we have is to find in the assorted contenders one who can actually lead the party away from their addictions and faults, and towards the desires of the people for good, clean, and moral government all around.

62

busboy33 Said:
10:31 pm

@ Manning:
I re-read the post, and if you are saying “would have completed a human being” equals “human being” then why qualify it in the first post? Why worry about “erase[ing] all of the structural information the fetus cells contain . . . “?
A child is in the process of growing. Its still a human being, not something in the process of becoming a human being.
An acorn contains all of the structural information to create a tree, but its not a tree. If I collect 1000 acorns and smash them with a hammer, I haven’t chopped down a forest.
Your second post states your position much clearer: human life begins at conception, period. Thats a perfectly legitimate position to take, but its a position taken on faith alone. There is no evidence life begins (or doesn’t) at conception, its what you believe. You may be right, you may be wrong. But to say “because I believe it, you must as well” does not sit well with non-believers, and when the (far) Right refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that they might not be 100% correct, it hurts the party.

63

busboy33 Said:
12:30 am

@manning:
“Allowing the Democrats into full power is simply beyond anguish and nearing chaos.”

“People, I seem to gather, like to watch porn, fornicate without penalty, play with the same sex, cheat on their income tax (if they pay anything at all), get money free from the government, or get free services such as medical care, schooling, college, home bailout loans, a job for life, a government retirement pension vested after 10 years, superb roads, rail and bus transport, zero smog, pure water, and jolly companionsâ€”also for life. But only if they donâ€™t have to pay for it or work hard for it, or defend their nation for it.”

Wow. You do realize how craaaaaaaazy that sounds, right? Republicans are morally upright (well, except for the adulterers, gays, and meth smokers) while Democratic rallys pass out crack and porn at the door. Just wow.

Remember about 10 years ago? Y’know, when Willie was in the white House? How everybody stopped working, the economy collapsed, everybody just lay around, cashing their free govt money and bought drugs to fuel same-sex orgies? Don’t remeber that?
Its because it didn’t happen. gasp Clinton must have been secretly a Repuplican! It would certainly explain the adultery.
You seem like a well intentioned person, but comments like that are outrageously offensive. I always wonder why the “Morality Party” is so rude.

64

mannning Said:
4:20 pm

Re: #63 Of course I remember, and of course I know that the post was a gross exaggeration—deliberately so. But, Sir, I was not talking about yesterday when Slick Willie was in the WH, but today, when 7 candidates from the Demo party are roaming our landscape promising the most outrageous things for 2009+ that I simply had to give satire a go. Promises, promises, words and words, but no reality, no substance, and few thoughts worth mentioning, except vote for us and we will give you….

65

mannning Said:
4:24 pm

unless you want to count Obama’s suggestion that we invade Pakistan as reality and forward thinking…

66

mannning Said:
4:48 pm

Re: #62 You now have my position correctly. Yes, it is an article of faith, until science unravels the information content of elements, cells, DNA and genes,and the mechanisms that drive both the conception of a human being and the humans ultimate form.

Lacking that development, I will continue to believe that embedded in those objects and mechanisms is the secret of the creation of human life. I will also continue to believe that deliberately interdicting the process, once started, is murder.

The appalling thing to me is the sheer number of abortions in the US, which is averaging some 1.5 million/year. Yet we are far, far more concerned with the murder of their much older brothers and sisters in Iraq, now approaching 3,800. There is something grossly incommensurate about those figures and the feelings that go with them.

67

mannning Said:
5:11 pm

In the end, the two issues are indeed wedge issues. Who can possibly help the legal situation regarding abortion or gay marriage except the political parties? Who can identify the party they want to vote for, if they cannot read or hear which party will follow their wishes? Do we still have majority rule, or are we actually ruled by five men in black robes?

68

busboy33 Said:
7:26 pm

@manning (#66):
perhaps the differnce in concern between the thousands killed in Iraq and the millions of abortions is becuase everybody agrees that the thousands dead in Iraq are human beings. The millions of abortions are open to debate as to whether they are human beings or simply growths of cells. For the people who believe the latter, then abortions aren’t murder/genocide, but simple medical procedures, no more significant than getting a Botox shot or having a mole removed from your skin.
Obviously, from your position, the shock you feel at focusing on such a small number of deaths comparitively is understandable. But absent that initial presumption (life begins at conception), the disperate attention paid to Iraq deaths makes perfect sense (at least to me).

First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are NYT: Analogies Are Meaningless (Un…

70

Drewsmom Said:
6:03 am

We Republicans should stop trying to ban Abortion and let the Lord deal with these people when it is their time to stand before him. We can voice our concern over this practice and yes, BAN PARTIAL BIRTH MURDER, but the dems think nothing of killing their young so there isn’t much we can really do about this practice except voice our concern.
I say let the gays do their thing, as long as they aren’t bothering me and give em rights but NOT MARRIAGE, just rights as far as contracts and money like other couples have.
Conservatives should strive to do what they know the Lord wants them to do and let the dems deal with the consequences of their own actions.

71

mannning Said:
12:39 pm

Re: #68 busboy

You are quite right. There are those who think abortion is simply a medical procedure with no negative aspects. However, I would venture that they are either not Christians, or they are Christians with weak principles—letting their desire not to be obligated to raise a child take precedence over their faith. In which case they make the very excuse you put forth: oh, it’s only protoplasm, not a person at all. This is exactly where my view differs. Abortion kills the objects, embedded procedures and mechanisms of life for a person.

72

mannning Said:
1:08 pm

I am appalled again that so many think that abortion is a nothing event. Not everyone, thank God, since most Christians would object to it. Unfortunately, some Christians are too weak in their faith to chose rearing a child over abortion. In any event, government funding for such an act should be stopped cold.

No blog spam, here. I just didn’t feel like writing everything all over again (if you notice, I haven’t had time to post there in a while).
As for your comments, you are incorrect. They are not interested in destroying families; they care only for what they want and are unwilling to take into consideration the detrimental effects that what they want has on our society, in particular on the children. And, besides, they don’t just want the same thing; they want special rights, and laws to state that nobody can even question them on it. Free speech only counts when you don’t speak against homosexuality. It’s okay to speak out against Christianity, or anything else, but it should be illegal to say anything against homosexuality according to them.

74

busboy33 Said:
8:02 pm

@manning:
I think this gets to the heart of the non-Republican oppisition to the language used by the party—absolutism, as I said earlier.
You have your beliefs, and bless you for them. But to assume that anybody who does not agree with your beliefs is a “bad Christian” presumes that you have the True Word of God, and they all do not.
I assume that you are a devout Christian of some demonination. As far as I know, the Bible does not state life begins at conception (if you are fimiliar with a passage that asserts such I would honestly like to know it, because I haven’t been able to find it). So it appears to me that the denominatios that hold life begins at conception arrived at that position through their interpretation of the text.
I was raised Episcopalian, and my pastor told us we each have to look into our heart, pray and meditate on the issue, and come to our own understanding with God as to what was right. Doing so would make me a “good Christian”, not a bad one.
I could just as easily claim Republicans are “bad Christians” for invading Iraq—Jesus said “turn the other cheek”, not “invade, occupy, and execute Saddam”. Regardless, the rhetoric of the Right for the invasion seems to hold that God wants us to go to war; a most un-Christian ideal.
For the record, I don’t support abortion, not because I think life begins at conception, but because I don’t know whether or not it does, and I don’t gamble with the lives of others. It would be inappropriate of me, though, to call you a “bad Christian” simply because I don’t believe exactly as you do, because your faith does not match mine. There are hundreds of different Christian denominations, all of which believe differently, interpret the Bible differenty, worship differently. All are as sincere as the others, and all have the same claim to being right.
Think back to the outcry when JFK was nominated. People feared that, as a Roman Catholic, he would govern not based on what was best for the country but based on what the precepts of his Church held. Non-Catholics were terrified that the Pope would be de facto in charge, that our country would become a Theocracy—the same system of government we demonize Iran for following.
Certainly, follow your faith and believe. But allow that others are just as sincere in following different denominations or faiths; to me, that is what America stands for.

75

mannning Said:
9:41 pm

busboy Re: #74

We seem to have been brought up in the same faith, but from the age of fifteen, my course veered off in many directions. Only after age 45 did I return to the fold. To my knowledge the bible is silent on the matter of concern here. My belief was sparked by the unfolding of the various cell phenomena connected with conception and growth. The creation of a human being is one continuous explosion of cells, guided by information contained in genes of many types. If it is so continuous and explosive, and if it is guided by the information content within cells, then incremental division between non-life and life, or non-human and human is simply not possible. It must be registered as starting with conception. Life begins at conception, in this view. If this isn’t so, then where is the real dividing line? Where is that point where life does not exist. Does someone have a meter that registers the lack of turn on of life in a fetus? Then too, why is it an issue? Why is it necessary to call one stage non-human-life and the very next stage human life? How does one find the precise point here in a maze of developing cells in the womb? Is it only because there are vested interests in having the option to abort? If so, that is not a particularly good reason—it is a horrible reason, in fact.

Of course I must grant that others believe differently. It is very difficult to understand why others believe that way, however, since we are talking about lives to be lived—or not. I vote for life, and in a real sense, I grieve for the some 14 million aborted lives in the last ten years. It must be so that others do not grieve, do not hurt. They may be the lucky ones:
it is not for me to judge them, either.

76

busboy33 Said:
12:26 am

@ manning:
quite possibly, one of the best explanations for “life-at-conception” I’ve ever heard. Its a shame the party leaders don’t put half as much effort into explaining their views.

77

mannning Said:
1:58 pm

busboy Re: #76

Thank you for the complement. Naturally, the ideas I used were not original. Two sources have guided me in this: 1) The Edge of Evolution, by Michael Behe; and, 2) Programming the Universe, by Seth Lloyd.
I recommend both very highly.

78

busboy33 Said:
5:18 pm

What a minute . . .

You mean you sought out information in order to make an informed decision as to your beliefs?

They are soooo gonna kick you out of the Wingnut club.

79

mannning Said:
8:40 pm

Guilty! I learned to aim, hold my breath, then pull the trigger way back. This makes wingnuts very uncomfortable.